Typically decisions of this sort are especially anchored in Consequentialist thought. Arguably, this choice is anchored there in the sense that if we fail to respond to what the al-Assad regime has done then we leave this option open to his government and others. In order to protect human life on a large scale we retaliate so that more people in Syria and elsewhere will not be gassed.

We could also argue the case from a Deontological standpoint, saying that we have a duty to protect human life, and that this is a case of the more powerful and better equipped using technology to wipe out its opposition. Therefore, lest the "bully" continue to beat upon the smaller combatant, we must step in.

Ordinarily the decision in a case like this isn't complicated by the fact that we might end up empowering a group like the Muslim Brotherhood by intervening in what would otherwise appear to be a humanitarian fashion.

Thanks, Bill! I knew I could expect a well-thought out and thought-provoking answer from you. Now to hear from Chris, who I hope will weigh-in. (No last name because, Chris, you know who you are.)

Gwen

It's interesting that Paul was, one supposes, incapable of making an ethical decision not to wipe out the Christians before he was knocked off his ass. Once a Christian, he was simply playing favorites in not wiping them out. However, it seems he also did not wipe out non-Christians. Was this the ethical decision after his conversion?

One gets the sense that Paul's story does not enter into the considerations of an American administration. As Johnson suggests (above) the thinking is merely punitive, using aggression to discourage aggression or perhaps to neutralize the ability to be aggressive in certain ways: punish, deter, destroy ability. But I wonder if it is true that "ordinarily the decision isn't complicated by the fact that we might end up empowering a group like the Muslim Brotherhood by intervening in what would otherwise appear to be a humanitarian fashion." Or ISIS as it turns out. If we intervene in a conflict, we certainly empower one faction as we damage the other. Herein lies that old warning about good intentions and paving stones.

I wonder if we shouldn't interrogate the notion of "just war." What justice does war accomplish? Obvious and typical answers are often "freedom" from aggression, oppression, etc. It is interesting that within an nation-state that is at peace (at least within its own borders, like the US) there is plenty of aggression, oppression, abuse, death and destruction daily. My school is in a city where General Motors moved out and it is as though some foreign power destroyed our economy by flattening the factories. The factories were "peacefully" and legally flattened by bulldozers. The lives of the people were flattened by poverty. Currently the city has a subsistence economy and a crumbling infrastructure. We might as well have been invaded by a foreign power and, curiously, in a sense we have been: the state government has appointed an Emergency Financial Manager with the power to make law and sell city assets, to effectively negate the elected government. It is as though we lost the Cold War. All of the previous "just wars" could not prevent that from happening.

So one could argue that if war is no worse than peace, justice is not really the issue.

Wow, Scott, thank you for the depth of your answer.  I will come back to this just as soon as I have sorted out the visions in my head of Paul on the road to Damascus and the beautiful crumbling and abandoned historic buildings in Detroit.  Your letter is rich in so many ways; and I really appreciate your input.  (I would only add that we were actually invaded by foreign powers in the case of Detroit -- the auto industry was destroyed by imports of vehicles with mostly foreign parts like Hyundai, Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes, BMW -- the list goes on.) 

Gwen

Yes, we could describe auto history that way, and it was far worse than when British troops invaded Detroit in 1812.

Re-reading our exchange, I realize that perhaps justice might be the only issue.